Publicly funded elections would save the public's money

The guilty plea of local Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham
points to a sad truth about our elected public servants: They are
often more interested in personal and political gain than in
representing their constituents.

We are angry. We are betrayed.

But we are not surprised. The problem of money in politics is
nothing new. Back in 1895, Mark Hanna said, "There are two things
that are important in politics: The first is money and I can't
remember what the second one is." We've had a lot of elections
since 1895. We've had a lot of political campaigns and a lot of
attempts at reform, but Hanna's words still ring true.

What can we do? One promising idea that is gaining ground in
California is called "Clean Money," and it refers to a voluntary
system of full public funding of election campaigns.

Already working in Arizona and Maine, Clean Money is an
innovative yet practical measure whereby candidates have the option
to run for office using public funds rather than relying upon
private donations.

Instead of soliciting campaign donations from sources that will
likely want favors down the road, candidates are free to take
office beholden only to the voters that elected them.

Additionally, because Clean Money makes elections about the
ideas and merits of the candidates instead of fundraising
competitions, more good people with good ideas who lack the wealth
or wealthy connections can run viable campaigns. Rather than
spending hours a day "dialing for dollars," those candidates can go
out in the community to meet with and listen to the concerns of
voters.

Clean Money is a simple concept: Show a broad base of support in
the district and get a reasonable amount of public money.
Candidates qualify for public funding by gathering a required
number of $5 contributions and signatures of support from residents
within the district they hope to represent. Once they attain the
necessary number of qualifying contributions, candidates agree not
to collect private contributions and not to spend their own money
on their campaigns. To counteract the advantage of wealthy
candidates who finance their own campaigns, clean candidates
receive a dollar-for-dollar match up to a set limit if a
non-participating candidate exceeds the basic public grant.

This dollar-for-dollar match also kicks in if an independent
group makes an expenditure that brings the amount spent attacking a
Clean Money candidate or promoting his or her opponent above the
amount provided by the public.

It sounds expensive, doesn't it? It's not. Our state Clean Money
bill would cap the system at about $134 million per year or about
$5.50 per adult Californian. This is less than the cost of buying a
latte and a bagel, and much less than the astonishing $300 million
spent during November's special election.

At the end of the day, Clean Money will save Californians money.
When politicians are no longer dependent on big money donors, they
will no longer be looking out for the narrow interests of these
donors. With Clean Money, they can focus on voter needs rather than
donor demands for special favors, tax loopholes and giveaways that
cost Californians millions every year.